Pat Robertson: "I warned Bush on Iraq"

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

(random Pat image)

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/...iraq/index.html

 

Robertson: I warned Bush on Iraq casualties

President's response: 'We're not going to have any'

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 Posted: 10:20 PM EDT (0220 GMT)

 

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."

 

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."

 

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."

 

"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

 

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

 

Robertson, the televangelist who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 1988, said he wishes Bush would admit to mistakes made.

 

"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."

 

More than 1,100 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and another 8,000 troops have been wounded in the ongoing campaign, with the casualty toll significantly increasing in the last six months as the insurgency there has deepened.

 

Asked why Bush has refused to admit to mistakes on Iraq, Robertson said, "I don't know this politics game. You know, you can never say you were wrong because the opposition grabs onto it: 'See, he admitted he screwed up.' "

 

Even as Robertson criticized Bush for downplaying the potential dangers of the Iraq war, he heaped praise on Bush, saying he believes the president will win the election and that "the blessing of heaven is on Bush."

 

"Even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of stumbles and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him," Robertson said.

 

As for Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, Robertson said, "I don't think he's a leader. He's a ponderous debater, a good senator probably."

 

Pat's record of prediction is pretty lousy. Such as with Hurricanes in Florida (a bit early) or Pat predicting that Bush would win in a 'blowout' ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107258,00.html ) or the fact that Pat had to have surgery for his prostate cancer despite his ability to sense God healing people. Although predicting a war will be messy isn't too hard.

 

But unless Pat is either misquoting Bush, vengeful against Bush for some reason or just being foolish.. the casualty quote was foolish (if it's true). Pat is capable of using an unintentionally foolish quote. (I would expect that Bush probably said something like "there won't be a problem, which is less stupid)

 

Then again.. I'd rather have Bush be President than Pat. If that's really a compliment to anybody.

 

The other day, I realized that Pat hadn't said anything really stupid lately.

 

But God heard me, and Pat fulfilled one of his duties.

 

(random question: Does Pat still show up on the 700 club a lot? I used to watch the show for entertainment a few years ago)

[NoCalMike 0]

I dunno who to go after first, Robertson for talking, Bush for screwing up, or Fox News giving Robertson a forum.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

well.. Pat said that stuff about the blowout on his own show.

 

then again.. Pat didn't mention if God was specific on who would win. Ha.

[Guest Cerebus]

So the only time you take Pat Robertson seriously is when he's criticizing Bush?

 

By the way, he appears on the 700 club every week since he hosts it...

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

I don't take Robertson seriously on anything, but if Bush really said that, it is kinda scary that our president would be so naive. Fortunately for Bush, noone else takes Robertson seriously either, so this won't hurt Bush at all.

[2GOLD 0]

Pat is probably mad about the news Bush might remove Ashcroft.

 

I mean COME ON, you are going to take the word of this crazy bastard?!?!

 

This would be like trusting Charles Manson to watch your three daughters and giving him the keys to the gun cabinet.

[Guest SP-1]

Simply because he might sense God healing others has nothing to do with his own state of health. Why that connection would be drawn I have no idea. In fact, those I've noticed who pray for the healing of others are usually suffering in some fashion.

 

God doesn't always use the perfectly healthy to minister healing to others.

 

As for the other stuff: meh.

[2GOLD 0]

I'm not going to question his faith healing cause that I don't care about. If people want to believe that, fine and dandy it is their life. Doesn't make them crazy.

 

But Pat IS nuts. Anyone who claims the Towers were destroyed because God doesn't like gay people or that Florida would be hit with Hurricanes for their poor voting and liking gay people (WOW! FLORIDA HIT BY HURRICANES! BOLD!) is a little bit off his rocker.

 

Pat Robertson makes Jerry Falwell seem well balanced.

[Guest whitemilesdavis]

Pat Robertson makes Jerry Falwell seem well balanced.

 

Now I don't have a great deal of respect for Pat, but you must not know much about Falwell.

 

He is the king of crazy, crooked preachers.

[2GOLD 0]

Pat Robertson makes Jerry Falwell seem well balanced.

 

Now I don't have a great deal of respect for Pat, but you must not know much about Falwell.

 

He is the king of crazy, crooked preachers.

 

Pat beat him to the Towers punch, I had him pass Jerry that day.

Pat has been getting crazier and crazier whereas Jerry remains the same crazy he always has been.

[Guest MikeSC]

OK, for the sake of Pat --- and all Dems --- here is why Bush won't "admit mistakes":

 

Care to guess the NY Times headline if Bush "admits mistakes"? Care to guess how the major networks will cover it?

 

It's clearly a trap question and Bush is simply not playing that game.

 

Good for Bush.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Basically, the current route, which plays into the Dems hands is better than the alternative?

 

It'll be all about the middle and which actions are more acceptable.

 

So the only time you take Pat Robertson seriously is when he's criticizing Bush?

 

I noted my skepticism on Pat

 

By the way, he appears on the 700 club every week since he hosts it

 

It seems they always had that Miss America, the one guy and Pat's son on most of the time instead of Pat.

[Guest MikeSC]

Basically, the current route, which plays into the Dems hands is better than the alternative?

 

It'll be all about the middle and which actions are more acceptable.

Yup, it's MUCH better. If you think "admitting mistakes" doesn't play into the Dems' hands, you're foolish. It would play into their hands moreso than anything else.

 

And the fact that he even asked the question showed what a total blithering hack Schieffer was.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Yup, it's MUCH better. If you think "admitting mistakes" doesn't play into the Dems' hands, you're foolish. It would play into their hands moreso than anything else.

 

it's a matter of what will get less traction.

 

Anything can play into anybody's hands. But, it takes some sort of traction for it to be worth anything to people who aren't total partisans.

 

there's ways to handle this and be likeable, and ways to handle this and look stubborn

 

And the fact that he even asked the question showed what a total blithering hack Schieffer was.

 

Schieffer's questions were wedge-a-riffic.. AWB, Abortion, Affirmative Action

 

definately a change of pace from the usual, mostly relevant, Debate questions

[Guest MikeSC]

Yup, it's MUCH better. If you think "admitting mistakes" doesn't play into the Dems' hands, you're foolish. It would play into their hands moreso than anything else.

 

it's a matter of what will get less traction.

 

Anything can play into anybody's hands. But, it takes some sort of traction for it to be worth anything to people who aren't total partisans.

 

there's ways to handle this and be likeable, and ways to handle this and look stubborn

Hate to break it to you, but Bush not admitting mistakes hasn't hurt him in the slightest. He's making the correct decision.

 

Personally, I'd have said not vetoing more spending bills, not shit-canning Richard Clarke the moment I took office, and keeping that moron Norm Mineta in office long after he proved himself to be an inept putz --- but that wouldn't satisfy the Dems.

And the fact that he even asked the question showed what a total blithering hack Schieffer was.

 

Schieffer's questions were wedge-a-riffic.. AWB, Abortion, Affirmative Action

 

definately a change of pace from the usual, mostly relevant, Debate questions

Schieffer could not have POSSIBLY asked more pro-Kerry questions than he did ("Back door draft"? Jesus, reciting enough Kerry talking points, CBS boy?).

 

The GOP would be wise, in the future, to demand that nobody from CBS ever be permitted to be involved with the debates.

-=Mike

...Hell, why not Brit Hume? He's hardly a partisan hack...

[Dr. Tom 0]

Hume would have done a much better job, IMO. Schieffer was as awful as I'd expect someone from the rancid and biased CBS News division to be. I guess the only thing worse would have been Rather himself as moderator, since he would have asked loaded questions about his precious fake memos while giving Kerry a stress-relieving handjob.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Hume's the man -- he makes me laugh when he does the "Political Grapevine" segment on the network America trusts for real journalism, fa(ux)ir and balanced.

 

and lol'ing in 2004...

[NoCalMike 0]

I think the difference between Pat and Jerry is Pat really believes his christian ways almost to the point of absurdity at times, where as Fauwell is a conservative FIRST and then uses his bible secondly to try and justify every one of his conservative positions.

[Guest MikeSC]

Kinda weird that this is news now, since he first said this back in June, on Hardball.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Kinda weird that this is news now, since he first said this back in June, on Hardball.

-=Mike

I'm pretty sure Paula Zahn whoops Hardball in the ratings

[Guest MikeSC]

Kinda weird that this is news now, since he first said this back in June, on Hardball.

          -=Mike

I'm pretty sure Paula Zahn whoops Hardball in the ratings

Or maybe, just maybe, the press thinks it's news now because it might hurt Bush, when it wouldn't have back in June --- when it was first uttered.

-=Mike

...Hell, without the press in his back pocket, Kerry would be in the high 30's in the approval polls...

[Guest Cerebus]

So who would you rather believe? Robertson or Bob Woodward?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Kinda weird that this is news now, since he first said this back in June, on Hardball.

           -=Mike

I'm pretty sure Paula Zahn whoops Hardball in the ratings

Or maybe, just maybe, the press thinks it's news now because it might hurt Bush, when it wouldn't have back in June --- when it was first uttered.

-=Mike

...Hell, without the press in his back pocket, Kerry would be in the high 30's in the approval polls...

In your world.. CNN and MSNBC are equal

 

in the world of ratings, it's not that way

 

Now, if Pat had said the same exact thing.. you'd have a point, but he didn't. Look into it.

[Guest MikeSC]

So who would you rather believe? Robertson or Bob Woodward?

Pat knows God. PERSONALLY.

 

Who does Bob Woodward know? Carl Bernstein? Call me less than impressed.

In your world.. CNN and MSNBC are equal

 

in the world of ratings, it's not that way

 

Now, if Pat had said the same exact thing.. you'd have a point, but he didn't. Look into it.

Pat DID say the exact same thing back in June.

ROBERTSON: Well, I don‘t think God‘s opposed to the war, necessarily, but it was a danger sign. I felt very uneasy about it from the very get-go. Whenever I heard about it, I knew it was going to be trouble. I warned the president. I only met with him once. I said, You better prepare the American people for some serious casualties. And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don‘t have to worry about that. But it has been messy. And I think we‘re going to come out of it, though. I think we‘ll have a free Iraq. But it certainly has been a mess so far.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5277869/

 

BTW, he ALSO has stated, repeatedly, that God wants Bush to be President. Since Pat is now a reliable source (demonstrating that the quickest way to go from laughingstock to legitimate source is to criticize Bush) --- I suppose voting for Kerry would be in violation of God.

 

As fior MSNBC and CNN's ratings --- they are both so low as to be all but indistringuishable.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Actually.. if you rely on the reports of Pat's prediction. God only told him that the election would be a blowout, not any specifics on who would win.

 

"And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don‘t have to worry about that"

 

is not the same as

 

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

 

That's the main difference.

 

Granted, Pat could have fucked up big time there. I'm sure if he did, he'll mention it sometime.

 

I'm leaning towards "blunder". I don't think Pat Robertson would have anything against Bush.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually.. if you rely on the reports of Pat's prediction. God only told him that the election would be a blowout, not any specifics on who would win.

 

"And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don‘t have to worry about that"

 

is not the same as

 

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

 

That's the main difference.

 

Granted, Pat could have fucked up big time there. I'm sure if he did, he'll mention it sometime.

 

I'm leaning towards "blunder". I don't think Pat Robertson would have anything against Bush.

Um, when the topic was "we're going to have casualties" --- it is the EXACT SAME THING.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Actually.. if you rely on the reports of Pat's prediction. God only told him that the election would be a blowout, not any specifics on who would win.

 

"And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don‘t have to worry about that"

 

is not the same as

 

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

 

That's the main difference.

 

Granted, Pat could have fucked up big time there. I'm sure if he did, he'll mention it sometime.

 

I'm leaning towards "blunder". I don't think Pat Robertson would have anything against Bush.

Um, when the topic was "we're going to have casualties" --- it is the EXACT SAME THING.

-=Mike

Yes

 

and the "response" from Bush was different

 

Pat Robertson should emerge from his 700 Club Tower to clear this up.

 

I'm guessing he misquoted Bush there

[NoCalMike 0]

LO F'N L @ the statement, "The press is in Kerry's back pocket" Please, get fucking real already.

[Guest MikeSC]

LO F'N L @ the statement, "The press is in Kerry's back pocket" Please, get fucking real already.

It's absolutely the fucking truth. Just because you wish to not face it hardly makes it not the case.

 

Note: There haven't been forged documents passed off as real that opposed Kerry. Nor has a comment that was first made 4 months ago treated as news by somebody the press has pretty well ignored as a loon for years that was damaging to Kerry. Nor has the head of a network's political division stating that while both candidates lie, only one side's "lies" need to be disputed.

 

Just mentioning a few problems.

Yes

 

and the "response" from Bush was different

 

Pat Robertson should emerge from his 700 Club Tower to clear this up.

 

I'm guessing he misquoted Bush there

Why? So the press can ignore it as they did with Bremer's clarification of his comments?

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

LO F'N L @ the statement, "The press is in Kerry's back pocket"  Please, get fucking real already.

It's absolutely the fucking truth. Just because you wish to not face it hardly makes it not the case.

 

Note: There haven't been forged documents passed off as real that opposed Kerry. Nor has a comment that was first made 4 months ago treated as news by somebody the press has pretty well ignored as a loon for years that was damaging to Kerry. Nor has the head of a network's political division stating that while both candidates lie, only one side's "lies" need to be disputed.

 

Just mentioning a few problems.

Yes

 

and the "response" from Bush was different

 

Pat Robertson should emerge from his 700 Club Tower to clear this up.

 

I'm guessing he misquoted Bush there

Why? So the press can ignore it as they did with Bremer's clarification of his comments?

-=Mike

Ok so you point to once incident, on one network, which in the long run has done more damage to Kerry then Bush, which involved an issue, no one cared about, and no one was going to change their vote for.

 

Oh and the Pat Robertson thing, the most I have seen it being used, is as fodder on comedy shows. Nobody is taking Robertson seriously now, anymore then they did before. Once again, an issue or subject, no one is changing their vote over, and no one cares about.

 

 

Please.